Do pro se litigants struggle to interpret rules of civil procedure? Or could noncompliance be explained by other access to justice (A2J) barriers? Advocates for pro se litigants often focus on translating the law into plain language. But these efforts fall short of addressing deployability, an individual’s ability to leverage their knowledge of the law in court. Recent research suggests many A2J barriers fall into the latter category.
Though it might seem like a purely academic regulatory puzzle, the way researchers, IRBs, and courts define “human subjects” in legal research will shape the future of evidence-based reform in access to justice and beyond.
The landmark court decision in Gideon v. Wainwright from 1963 made it a constitutional right, both in federal and state courts, for criminal defendants to have the right to counsel. That decision does not extend to civil cases– such as child custody, eviction, and domestic violences cases–which affect women, often from marginalized backgrounds, more than than men. HLS student Laura Aquino argues for a study to address the gender bias in denying legal assistance to civil litigants that may play a role in preserving a system that limits access to justice for women.
With this housing insecurity having potentially numerous contributing factors, the Access to Justice Lab and research partners at the University of Houston Law Center targeted legal literacy as a potential key to addressing housing evictions in its recently completed pilot study.
Law is a millennium behind medicine (give or take a few centuries). While medicine has evolved into a science-based discipline with rigorous empirical standards, law still operates on precedent, rhetoric, and theory untethered to scientific evidence. It doesn’t have to be that way. There is nothing so unique about the practice of law that makes it immune to data. Why should law, unlike every other discipline, not submit itself to math and science?
Using humans in legal research requires ethical oversight, much like scientific research, but with some distinctions. IRB expert Shannon Sewards shares those nuanced differences and offers insight into some of the challenges in determining activities requiring IRB oversight, balancing ethics with regulatory requirements, and operating with reduced support from the federal government.
Across the country, courthouse cell phone bans pose a significant barrier to entry to the legal system. HLS J.D. candidate Andrew Reed argues that in attempting to maintain a respectful atmosphere and protect privacy with cellphone bans, courthouses have inadvertently made access to justice less attainable for many, including pro se litigants.
When researchers in the United States conduct human subjects research, they must submit to the watchful eye of Institutional Review Boards. To many researchers, especially those outside of fields typically engaged in human subjects research, IRBs are mysterious, bureaucratic entities. Here, we delve into demystifying IRBs and the Common Rule.
When one court system in the U.S. clashed internally over the best medium to hear family law cases, they sought out a randomized control trial for the answer. That A2J Lab study, initiated in 2021, is nearing the end of its evaluation of online versus in-person family law hearings, focusing on self-represented litigants.
The COVID-19 pandemic thrust online court into a mainstream alternative to traditional in-person court hearings. Zoom has shown mixed results, both in its ability to capture the needs of a court hearing (including sticky notes passed between attorneys and clients) and its role in reducing failure to appear rates in court. This makes online court a prime candidate for a randomized control trial to test its impact on court appearances.
